Republicans Gut States Rights

When Democrats were in power, Republicans hollered “states rights” every time Democrats tried to help the poor and downtrodden. Now that Republicans are in power, they are trampling “states rights” in order to help their friends in the business community. Business before pleasure… or… “states rights.” Republicans have approved in committee a health bill that emasculates state health laws by overriding them with a weak federal health law. Republicans are gutting a strong pillar of conservatism: States rights.

The bill is called The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act (HIMMAA), and was introduced by Mike Enzi, a Republican representative from New York. It would bring a single law to bear across the entire U.S. This is a good idea - if it were a decent law. But it is a weak law. It would allow insurance companies to ignore nearly all state laws that require insurance coverage for certain treatments or conditions.

If a benefit is in place in at least 45 states, insurers will need to include it. If not, insurers need not include it. In plain language, citizens of more liberal states like California, New York and Massachusetts, who are blessed with good health insurance laws, would lose benefits they already have. Instead of making our dysfunctional health system better, this law will make it worse. Some people call this bill

The Lose Your Benefits Bill

I don't mind Republicans gutting "states rights" if the result is an improved, not a restricted, healthcare system. We need health insurance for all. We need to have the federal government in charge. We need to have a universal healthcare system. However, you cannot expect Republicans to provide it.

Insures and insured can include any benefit they want and mutually agree to include. There is no restriction on that. The state simply cannot force them to include a benefit they may not wish to include and/or the insured may not wish to pay for with increased premiums. I prefer choice. Most people do. It prevents political allocation of resources and allows you not to pay for things you may not want.

The text is available here. It seems a fairly sensible way to lower health care costs by streamlining and making multi state insurance more efficient. It will probably also encourage more firms to insure their workers, by lowering the costs and administrative work. I doesn’t seem like something to get worked up about. Looks like a good idea.

I assume it was not actually proposed by a Republican Senator from New York, seeing as how they are none.

I am torn on the health care issue. Although I’d love to have healthcare for everyone, I am reluctant to have the government provide it. Of course, nobody else will if they do not, and the current system promotes our money going to pay for emergency health care for indigents anyway, so the increased costs would not be ridiculous. The Massachusetts system isn’t terrible, as it provides for significant choice and also the ability to secure your own healthcare. Any thoughts?

Insures and insured can include any benefit they want and mutually agree to include. There is no restriction on that. The state simply cannot force them to include a benefit they may not wish to include and/or the insured may not wish to pay for with increased premiums.

You make the presumption that there will be mutual agreement between insurer and insured, but that’s not the way insurance companies work. Insurance companies don’t work in cooperation with the public. This will lead to insurance companies chosing what they will or won’t cover, based on what’s best for their bottom line, and the insured will be stuck with whatever the insurance companies choose to dole out.

You should know better by now, we’ve been proven that everything they SAY is just lip service to get votes. Once they get elected, they abandon what they say as quickly as possible.

After all, if they actually solved these problems, what would they use to gain power next election cycle? It’s all about stringing everyone along in order to remain in power or regain power and expand the governmental control over our lives. Both parties are doing it, both party should be kicked out for doing it.

HIMMAA is a bill which is directed at small businesses only (fewer than 50 employees). This federal legislation would pre-empt many state mandated insurance regulations. The primary purpose is to reduce the cost of health insurance for small businesses (it does nothing to address the high cost of health care)by allowing insurance companies to avoid state mandated health benefits such as mammograms, contraceptives, and mental health benefits among others. Very few businesses this size operate outside of one state so the legislation isn’t really necessary. Although reducing the cost a small employer pays to provide insurance for its employees may seem like a good idea it is unlikely that this will result in a mass rush by mom and pop businesses to provide health insurance. More likely, the mom and pops will merely use the reduced cost to try to keep their business afloat longer. The high cost of health services isn’t even addressed by this weak effort. Big business (Halliburton, General Motors) wouldn’t be affected by this bill. This is like swatting a fly on a hippo. What a worthless effort. No doubt Bush and his cronies will showcase this bill as cutting edge health care reform.

I chose my insurance based on the package they offer and the price they charge. I would like to have dental insurance, for example, but it is not worth it for me to pay the extra amount, so I don’t. If government mandated dental care, I would have to pay for it and I calculate that it would cost more than my paying out of pocket for dental care when I need it.

Ulysses

States’ rights was a Democratic platform during the segregation era, when they controlled most southern states. It had some racist meaning in those days.

In its current form, it has more to do with pushing the power to regulate to the states. I don’t think it has much to do with racism any more.

Actually, the modern states’ rights is more aimed at business and environmental regulation.

Jack, the insuance companies aleady have free reign when it comes to what you can be hit with I don’t know if you have ever heard of “DOUBLE MAX” premiums. It seems as though this bill is their attempt at bringing the few states that do impose restrictions on them into line with the states they already control.

Hasn’t the term “state’s rights” always been considered conservative code words for racism?

Only by non-thinking individuals who don’t really have a valid point to make against their opponents so they try to play the race card to invalidate what their opponent is arguing for.

It’s really the case with most ‘codewords’, it hampers free thought and discussions in the political arena. Even if your oppononet IS racist, you should be able to defend your position without resorting to calling him one.

I chose my insurance based on the package they offer and the price they charge. I would like to have dental insurance, for example, but it is not worth it for me to pay the extra amount, so I don’t. If government mandated dental care, I would have to pay for it and I calculate that it would cost more than my paying out of pocket for dental care when I need it.

This isn’t about a state mandate to cover dental insurance. This is about Ohio requiring insurance companies to cover cervical cancer screenings. Tennessee requires insuranse to cover osteoporosis screenings. Multiple states allow pregnant women to stay with the same OB/GYN throughout their pregnancy whether or not their insurance company drops that doctor during the pregnancy. You make it sound like choosing health insurance is comparable to selecting the right phone plan.

And who out there believes that the insurance industry is competitive? Come on, let’s see a raise of hands. Most of us can only afford the insurance we get through our work, assuming our jobs carry insurance. How many plans do your employers offer? How much choice do we really have here?

No, I don’t see anything wrong with individual states choosing to pass laws that place requirements on insurance companies to cover certain critical items. If the insurance companies don’t like what they are doing in Ohio, New Hampshire, Tennessee, etc…, then they can do business elsewhere. That’s their choice.

Paul Siegal shows his ignorance of government by refering to Represenative Enzi as a Senator. It surely makes one wonder about his credibility.

Now see, When someone misstates a fact, simply directing them to a source where they can find the correct info, instead of calling them names and trying to make them feel small, one often ends up with egg on their own face.

This is a great example of how hypocritical the GOP is. They accomplished the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions by tapping into anti-Washington sentiment. Federal bureaucrats were supposed to be the problem, not the solution. Now that they have their hands on the levers of federal power, they think that the real wisdom is in DC, not Boston or Sacramento. Fortunately, real conservatives seem to be slowly wising up.

Jack,

People don’t really have choice in the health insurance market. They are basically stuck with the company their employer selects. It is not like buying a car or something. If I want leather upholstery in my car, I can pay a little more and get it. Employer-sponsored health care is usually not like that.

Paul, Enzi was indeed a Representative but is now a Senator, as Traveler and Sassy stated, for Wyoming.

This is an absolutely terrible bill. It’s a Neocon gift for the insurance industry. I’ve read that these pre-emptions are going to affect almost everybody, because they’re going to apply not only to small employer plans, but to individual health insurance and large group plans, too.
You know what other legislation is a Neocon gift to their corporate friends that really stinks?The House voting to kill the internet. But you can take action here to try to stop them.

After all, if they actually solved these problems, what would they use to gain power next election cycle? It’s all about stringing everyone along in order to remain in power or regain power and expand the governmental control over our lives. Both parties are doing it, both party should be kicked out for doing it.

Amen, brother. Term limits would solve so many problems. The term “career politician” should be abolished!

As a wise Senator said in 2000: “Among the handful of principles that are fundamental to any true protection for health care consumers, probably the most important is allowing states to continue in their role as the primary regulator of health insurance.”

Who said it? Oh, Mike Enzi. The statement’s still on his Senate web site; I wonder how long it’ll take for him to take it down. (Too late, Mike, archive.org already has a copy.)